jaredangle
Photojournalist
Hey everyone,
I'm looking into expanding my existing RZ67 system (body and 180mm f/4.5 telephoto) for landscape photography. The current lens has worked well for portraits and some smaller-scale landscapes, but I'm looking for a longer lens that will allow me to build a lot of compression into more expansive scenes (specifically mountains and valleys, but also other things like boats anchored in a harbor).
I'm looking at the 360mm f/6 and the 350mm f/5.6 APO. The latter is newer, but around 2-4 times more expensive than the former. Does it justify the extra cost or will I be happy with the 360mm? There is also a 600mm available but I think that will be too long for my needs.
I may add the 110mm f/2.8 at some point, but I'm prioritizing the long tele first.
I'm looking into expanding my existing RZ67 system (body and 180mm f/4.5 telephoto) for landscape photography. The current lens has worked well for portraits and some smaller-scale landscapes, but I'm looking for a longer lens that will allow me to build a lot of compression into more expansive scenes (specifically mountains and valleys, but also other things like boats anchored in a harbor).
I'm looking at the 360mm f/6 and the 350mm f/5.6 APO. The latter is newer, but around 2-4 times more expensive than the former. Does it justify the extra cost or will I be happy with the 360mm? There is also a 600mm available but I think that will be too long for my needs.
I may add the 110mm f/2.8 at some point, but I'm prioritizing the long tele first.